# Rupprecht Law P. A.

28 11 Grande Parkway, Suite 113 | Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 P: (561) 222

- 6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com

November 1 1 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140, Washington, DC 20590



### Petition for Amendment to Grant Co mmercial UAS Flight Instruction and Update Address

" The pilot who teaches himself has a fool for a student. " Robert Livingston, Flying the Aeronca

Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor petitions for an amendment to the previously granted exemption # 12594 (Docket Number FAA

- 2015

- 0818 ). Red Raptor was previously granted operational approval for aerial data collection and closed

- set tv / movie filming using the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 3, DJI S900, DJI S1000, and DJI Inspire.



## I. QUICK REFERENCE SUMMARY

 T his petition is to add on the operational approval of flight instruction 1 to the previous exemption. Many petitioners have requested authority to conduct UAS training and received this response, “ At this time, the FAA is unable to aut horize UAS operations for training until a further assessment is completed

. ”

 This exemption is being submitted as part of a group of four petitions that are virtually identical:

o Enviroskycam ( FAA

- 2015

- 1101 )

o Altair Video Productions, LLC D/B/A/ Cinemaerial Visuals (FAA

- 2015

- 375 7 )

o Shenandoah Drones, LLC ( FAA

- 2015

- 5846 )

 All the manuals will be sent in confidentially because they are considered proprietary under 14 CFR 11.35 (b ) and we argue should be protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552 et. seq.

 The previous address for the Petitioner was 324 Datura St., Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 but the new address is 2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410.

1 In 1991, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee which created the Air Traffic Subcommittee which established the Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle Operations Working Group. In 1996, this working group presented to the FAA four advisory circ ulars on UAV “ Design Criteria, Maintenance, Operations and Pilot Qualification and Training. ” Our definition of flight instructor is very similar to the flight instructor qualifications proposed by the working group. See page 23. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/atuavot1

- 102891.pdfPage 2 of 26 

## II. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL RELIEF FROM

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS I. QUICK REFERENCE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1

II. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL RELIEF FROM

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

III. PETITIONER ’ S CONTACT INFO:

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

IV. THE EXTENT OF RELIEF THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING

................................ .......................... 4

VI. REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS PETITION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

...... 10

A. How Allowing Flight Instruction Will Benefit the Public

................................ ......................... 10

1. The public needs qualified professionals to learn how to safely operate.

................................ .. 10

2. It will encourage a culture of safety to prevent harm.

................................ ................................ . 11

3. The public can use the flight instructor endorsements in safety evaluations.

............................. 11

4. It enables insurance carriers to increase the operational safety of their clients and lower premiums.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12

B. How Allowing Students to Learn Sa fe UA Operations Will Benefit the Public.

....................... 12

V. THE REASONS WHY THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REGULATIONS AND WHY THE EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

........ 13

A. Regulations Which Have Not Been Exempted In Previous Exemptions

................................ .. 14

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.1: Applicability and Definitions.

................................ ................................ ........ 14

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.3(d): Flight Instructor Certificate.

................................ ................................ ...... 15

3. 14 C.F.R. § 61.31(c) & (d): Limitations on the Carriage of Persons, or Operating for Compensation or Hire and Pilot in Command.

................................ ................................ .......... 16

4. 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(h) & (j) Logging Training Time and Aircraft Requirements for Logging Flight Time.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 17Page 3 of 26

5. 14 C.F.R. § 61.195: Flight Instructor Limitations and Qualifications.

................................ ...... 18

6. 14 C.F.R. § 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations.

................................ ............................... 18

B. Regulations Which Have Been Exempted In Previous Non

- Flight Instructing Exemptions

.... 19

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a): Medical Certificates

................................ ................................ ................. 19

C. Exempted Regulations the Petitioner Wishes To Maintain Without Change

............................. 20

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(c): Medical Certificates

................................ ................................ ................. 20

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations, 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a): Sport Pilot Limitations.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 20

3. 14 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness.

................................ ................................ ..... 21

4. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes.

................................ ................................ ....... 21

5. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings.

................................ ................................ ..................... 23

6. 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions.

................................ 23

7. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); § 91.407 (a)(1); § 91.409 (a)(1)& (2); § 91.417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspections

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 24

VII. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ 24

VIII. OPERATING DOCUMENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25

IX. STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO GRANT THIS PETITION

................................ ............................ 25

X. CONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26



## II I

. PETITIONER ’ S CONTACT INFO:
Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor 2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Legal Counsel for Petitioner Rupprecht Law, P.A. 2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 jon@jrupprechtlaw.comPage 4 of 26 

## IV

. THE EXTENT OF RELIEF THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING

The Petitioner proposes these restrictions and believes that these limitations provide an equivalent level of safety, if not greater, as the FAR ’ s presently imposed upon the Petitioner. Each of the regulations above will be talked about in greater detail i n another section in this petition. The u nderlined text shows
text that differs from the “ stock ” 333 restriction.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 3, DJI S900, DJI S1000, and DJI Inspire aircraft when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.
2. Operations for the purpose of c losed

- set motion pic ture and television filming are permitted. Operations for the purpose of flight and ground training are permitted. 3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The exemption holder may use either gr oundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the aircraft manufacturer. 4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL. 5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC ’ s FAA

- issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver ’ s license. 6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times; electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flig ht operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the duties required of the VO. 7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be accessible during UAS operations and mad e available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be follow ed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operatingPage 5 of 26

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the operator ’ s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision wo uld affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA ’ s UAS Integration Office (AFS

- 80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents. 8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional test flight prior to conducting further operat ions under this exemption. Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property. 9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. 10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre

- flight inspection and determine the UAS is in a condition for safe flight. The pre

- flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating unt il the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. 11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer ’ s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components. 12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer safety bulletins. 13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificat e. The PIC must also hold a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver ’ s license issued by a state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The PIC must also meet the flight review req uirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. 14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consi stent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator ’ s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience

-Page 6 of 26

building) and determining the PIC ’ s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be oper ated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience

- building flights, all persons not essential for f light operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. 15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operat ions must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. 16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA A irport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA published aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport ’ s management is obtained or otherwise permi tted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. 17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. 18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return t o a predetermined location within the private or controlled

- access property

. 19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. 20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater. 21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All operations shall be conducte d in accordance with an ATO

- issued COA. The exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA. 22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable. 23. Documents used by the operator to ens ure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.Page 7 of 26

24. The UA must remain clear of and give way to all manned aviation operations and activities at all times. 25. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.
26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the eve nt of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately i n a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating cl oser to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard. The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption. 27. All operations shall be conducted over private or contr olled

- access property with permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. 28. Any incident, accident, or f light operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS

- 80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transpor tation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. For the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply. 29. The operator must h ave a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) as documented in this grant of exemption.
30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Fli ght Standards District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3

- day notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following: a. Dates and times for all flights; b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under this grant of exemption;Page 8 of 26 c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on

- scene operation of the UAS; d. Make, model, and serial or N

- Number of UAS to be used ; e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming; f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request; g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which filming will be cond ucted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation. 31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the exemption holder ’ s MPTOM. For the purpose of flight instruction 2 and ground instruction, 3 restrictions 32

- 40 apply.
32. For the purpose of restrictions 33

- 40 , a certificated flight instructor means: a. A flight instructor who possesses a FAA flight instructor certificate listed under 14 C.F.R. subpart H ; b. Is compliant with 14 C.F.R. § 61.197 flight instructor currency requirements; and c. Is in compliance with restriction 13. 33. For purposes of restriction s 14 and 26, certificated flight instructors and their students are considered essential persons. 34. Certificated flight instructors may have more than one student present during flight or ground instruction. 35. Regarding restriction 6, there must be a VO in addition to the student. This does not preclude the VO from being a second student and listening to the instruction being given to the first student.
35 . The one operation that is not required to comply with restrictions 27 is flight and ground training. A certificated flight instructor may, in addition to using private or controlled

- access prop erty, use a public park or field that complies with restriction 26 (a) and the certificated flight instructor has made a safety assessment of the risks and determined that they do not present an

2 14 C.F.R. § 61.1 says, “ Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight [with] an aircraft. ”
3 Id. “ Ground training means that training, other than flight training, received from an authori zed instructor. ”Page 9 of 26

undue hazard to all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures

. Flight and ground training may also deviate from restriction 18 and have the return home point at a public park or field provided the PIC has determined that it would not present an undue hazard to all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures.
36. A certificated flight instructor may endorse in a pilot ’ s or non

- pilot ’ s logbook training given

on a UA even though the UA may be a different category or class than what the certificated flight instructor is rated for. 37. Any flight training/ground training 4 cannot be used to fulfil any aeronautical experience. 5 38. As long as the P IC is in compliance with restriction 13, the certificated flight instructor may either flight instruct while the student is acting as PIC or the flight instructor may act as PIC of a student who could not comply with restriction 13. 39. The certificated flight instructor must have logged 1 hour in the particular make and model of UA before giving flight or ground instruction. 40. All flight instructing operations where the flight instructor is PIC will be conducted with fully function al dual controls

.

4 As per 14 C.F.R. § 61.1
5 “ Aeronautical experience means pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device for meeting the appropriate training and flight time requirements for an airman certificate, rating, flight review, or recency of flight experience requirements of this part. ” Id.Page 10 of 26 

## VI. REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS PETITION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

" Mix ignorance with arrogance at low altitude and the results are almost guaranteed to be spectacular. "
Bruce Landsberg, AOPA Safety Foundation

.



### A. How Allowing Flight Instruction Will Benefit the Public

1. The public needs qualified professionals to learn how to safely operate.

Currently, no individuals or businesses have received an exemption to conduct UA commercial flight

instruction. Making matters worse, no public university can obtain a public COA to conduct flight

operations. 6 How do individuals or businesses get practical flight instruction? Are they expected to just go

out and fly at some uninhabited baseball field and learn by trial and error crash? Robe rt Livingston said,

" The pilot who teaches himself has a fool for a student. "

New UA recreational pilots turn to YouTube, local RC fields, and hobby/ RC shops to acquire the

skills needed to operate safely. Sadly, most of these resources have very little u nderstand ing of the national

airspace system and how it works. It has generally functioned as the “ partially blind ” leading the blind.

Further compounding the problem is the lack of knowledge in the industry of the FAR ’ s. Proverbs 13:20

6 See Letter from Mark Bury to Jim Williams, http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offi ces/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2014/will iams

- afs

- 80%20education%20

- % 20(2014)%20legal%20interpretation.pdfPage 11 of 26

says, “ Whoever walk

s with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm .” Granting

this exemption will allow the public to “ walk with the wise ” in operating safely in the national airspace

system.

2. It will encourage a culture of safety to prevent harm

.
Following upon the second part of the proverb above, t he culture of the industry is being influenced

by “ recreational ” non

- pilots who have very little knowledge or culture for safety. T he most highly

experienced and trained pilots , “ the wise, ” sat on the sidelines for fear of losing their certificates or their

livelihood. The culture void was filled with recreational flyers as opposed to professional flyers

. If this is

allowed to continue, the public will suffer harm.

Granting this exemption wi ll encourage a culture of safety by allowing certificated flight instructors

to come in and make a living , not just a hobby, by mentoring students on what it means to do a pre

- flight

planning in accordance with § 91.103 or what it means to do aeronautical decision making. This will not

have only an immediate impact, but a long

- lasting impact because the students will adopt a similar

philosophy for safety that they will teach to their co

- workers, neighbors, friends, or kids. Flight instructors

are really role models the industry desperately needs.

3. The public can use the flight instructor endorsements in safety evaluations.

The public will have the ability to evaluate which operator they wish to hi re based upon the training

the operator received from a certificated flight instructor. The public generally does not have much

knowledge to evaluate operators. Granting this exemption allows the public to choose the safer operator.Page 12 of 26

4. It enables insurance carriers to increase the operational safety of their clients and lower premiums. Flight instructors can work with insurance companies to develop training programs that will result in

the operators receiving higher limits of liability for lower premiums. Granting this exemption will benefit

the public because (1) safety will be reinforced on the front end through the insurance carrier supported

training programs, (2) in the un fortunate situation where an event does occur, the insurance will attempt

to make the person whole, and (3) the data from the accident will be used by insurance carriers and flight

instructors to educate and prevent future accidents.



### B. How Allowing Students to Learn Safe UA Operations Will Benefit the Public.

Many students intend to produce picture and video content. Allowing the Petitioner to flight instruct

allows the students the ability to use their own UA to obtain pict ure or video content for recreational or

commercial purposes rather than manned aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals

on the ground.

There are no pilots on board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the

public on the ground in case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors while most

manned aircraft have only one engine; thus, there is some motor redundancy for some UA in case of a

motor malfunction.

Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet

enjoyme nt of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the

public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution.Page 13 of 26

In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or t urbine powered aircraft produce exhaust which

affects the environment while the UA of the petitioner are electric and do not produce any emission. The

byproduct of 100LL emissions is lead entering the air the public breaths while electric motors produce

no ne. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.

The UA are much safer than traditional helicopters because instead of having to ferry the helicopter

from the airport all the way to the shooting location in the air over people and buildings and back to the

airport, a UA can be transported by ground vehicle. This greatly benefits the public because it minimizes

the amount of time that the UA is required to fly in the air to get the job done.

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there was

an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less of a chance for individuals being injured from an

explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned he licopters which will cause far less damage

in the case of a crash than the “ grenading ” that typically happens during a manned helicopter crash.

Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than most manned aircraft. This vertical separation

greatly r educes the chance of a mid

- air collision.



## V

. THE REASONS WHY THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REGULATIONS AND WHY THE EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY
The regulations in this petition will be broken up into three sections: (1) regulations which have not

been exempted in previous exemptions, (2) regulations which have been exempted in previous non

flight instructing exemptions, and (3) exempted regulations the Petitioner wishes to maintain without

change.Page 14 of 26



### A. Regulations Which Have Not Been Exempted In Previous Exemptions

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.1: Applicability and Definitions.

Section 61.1 says, “

Authorized instructor means. . . A person who holds a flight instructor certificate

issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with §61.197, when conducting ground

training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor

certificate[.] ” This is a burdensome regulations that is very impractical to comply with. Strictly

speaking, the only flight instructors that would be “ in accordance with the privileges and limitations of

his or her flight instructor certificate ” would be flight instructors with rotorcraft helicopter category

class ratings. Many flight instructors are only for ai rplanes. Our proposal is to allow any current FAA

certificated flight instructor of any category or class, with a current third class medical or driver ’ s
license, to flight instruct. Since one of the current regulations is that the flight instructor must b e at a
minimum of a commercial pilot 7 and the proposed regulations, Part 107, do not even have a provision

for a flight instructor, allowing a highly trained and knowledgeable flight instructor of any category or

class to flight instruct is the equivalent level of safety of current regulations, far beyond the 333

exemptions PIC minimum requirements being given out, and exceedingly beyond the equivalent level of

safety as the proposed regulations which do not even provide for a flight instructor position.

7 14 C

. F

. R

. § 61.183(c).Page 15 of 26

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.3(d): Flight Instructor Certificate.

Section 61.3(d)(2) says, “ Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, no person other than

the holder of a flight instructor certificate issued under this part with the appropriate rating on that

certificate may . . . [e] ndorse a pilot logbook to show training given[.] ” This section prohibits certificated

flight instructors from endorsing a pilot logbook to show training was given regarding safe UA operation.

Allowing certifi cated flight instructors to endorse logbooks allows pilots and non

- pilots to prove they have

been instructed on safe operation of UA in the national airspace system. Furthermore, prohibiting

certificated flight instructors from endorsing logbooks for train ing given prohibits the insurance industry

from working with flight instructors to develop safety training programs or schools to increase safety and

lower insurance premiums. Our proposal is to allow any current FAA certificated flight instructor of any

c ategory or class, with a current third class medical or driver ’ s license, to commercially flight instruct

with unmanned aircraft

.

Granting this exemption will benefit the public in regards to safety because it allows the Petitioner to

endorse students for training received. The public can use th e information in the logbooks to evaluate

which 333 operator they want to hire. Additionally, insurance companies can use this information to offer

higher limits of coverage for lower costs which benefits the public in case there is an unfortunate event.

Insurance does not just protect the 333 operator, it attempts to make the injure d party whole; therefore,

granting this exempti on would benefit the public because (1) the public can use the flight instructor

endorsements in safety evaluations and (2) it enabl es the potential to make the public whole in case of anPage 16 of 26

accident . Granting th is exemption provides an equivalent level of safety, if not greater, than the

regulations.

3. 14 C.F.R. § 61.31(c) & (d): Limitations on the Carriage of Persons, or Operating for Compensation or Hire and Pilot in Command. Section 61.31(c) & (d) says,
(c) Ai rcraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on the carriage of persons, or operating for compensation or hire. Unless a person holds a category, class, and type rating (if a class and type rating is required) that applies to the aircraft, that pe rson may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying another person, or is operated for compensation or hire. That person also may not act as pilot in command of that aircraft for compensation or hire. (d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must

— (1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown; or (2) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the pilot certification level, aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received an endorseme nt for solo flight in that aircraft from an authorized instructor.
The FA A previously said in response to the Southern Company Services, Inc. E xemption, “ This part

applies to persons who act as PIC of large aircraft, turbojet

- powered airplanes, and other aircraft

specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures, not the Aeryon SkyRanger that

weighs about 5 pounds. Accordingly, relief from 14 CFR § 61.31 is not necessary. ” 8 The Petitioner

respectfully disagrees. The Petitioner is asking to be relieved from the category and class requirements for

commercial operations and PIC. Many other exemptions have been granted by the FAA requiring that the

8 Southern Company Services, Inc.
, Exemption No. 11239 at page 7.Page 17 of 26

pilot only possess a pilot certificate in any category or class (i.e. Exemption # 11221) ; therefore, an

equivalent level of safety as the regulations has alrea dy been determined by the FAA for the PIC. Our

proposal is just a slight extension of that and it is to allow any current FAA certificated flight instructor of

any category or class, with a current third class medical or driver ’ s license, to commercially flight instruct

as PIC

.

4. 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(h) & (j) Logging Training Time and Aircraft Requirements for Logging Flight Time. Section 61.51(h) says, “

A person may log training time when that person receives training from an

authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device. ” While this is a

painstakingly meticulous reading of the FAR ’ s, the Petitioner will need an exemption from this regulation

because there will be no one “ in ” the aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be produced under the

proposed restrictions because there is little difference in safety between logging time in an aircraft and

outside an aircraft.

Section 61.51(j) says, “

Aircraft requirements for logging flight time. For a person to log flight time,

the time must be acquired in an aircraft that is identified as an air craft under §61.5(b), and is

. . . [a] n
aircraft of U.S. registry with either a standard or special airworthiness certificate[.] ” The Petitioner has

already obtained an exemption for certain UA; thus, granting this exemption will most definitely be an
equivalent level of safety as the regulations which became inapplicable with the FAA exercising their

Section 333 powers.Page 18 of 26

5. 14 C.F.R. § 61.195: Flight Instructor Limitations and Qualifications. Section 61.195 says,

“ A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subjec t to the following limitations: . . .

[a] flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does

not hold

. . . [a] pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class

rating .” Many other exemptions have been granted by the FAA requiring that the PIC only possess a

pilot certificate in any category or class (i.e. Exemption # 11221)

. Our proposal is just a slight

extension of that and it is to allow any current FAA certificated flight instructor of any category or

class, with a current third class medi cal or driver ’ s license, to commercially flight instruct. An

equivalent leve l of safety as the regulations can be achieved based upon the restrictions proposed.

6. 14 C.F.R. § 91.105 : Flight Crewmembers at Stations.

Section 91.105 says, “ (a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight

crewm ember shall

— (1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties

in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and (2) Keep

the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station

. ”

The Petitioner’s UA do not have seat belts and no one is inside the aircraft; therefore, an equivalent

level of safety can be provided since the forces of flight necessitating the need for seatbelts do not affect

the PIC.Page 19 of 26 

### B. Regulations Which Have Been Exempted In Previous Non

- Flight Instructing Exemptions

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) : Medical Certificates Section 61.23(a) says, “ Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a person . . .

Must hold at least a third

- class medica l certificate . . . When exercising the privileges of a flight

instructor certificate and acting as the pilot in command[.] ” The reason why t he Petitioner is seeking

relief from 61.23(a) & (c) is because in E xemption s # 11221
, # 11284, and many others
, the FAA ha s

determined that a U.S. driver ’ s license being used in lieu of a medical certificate provides an equivalent

level of safety as sub

- section (a ). No added safety benefit would be achieved by requiring a certificated

flight instructor to possess at a minimum of a third class medical. A medical certificate is not required

for flight instructors in gliders, a sport certificated flight instructor in balloons, 9 or a flight instructor

when not acting as PIC. 10 A driver ’ s license is sufficient for a flight instructor “ with a sport pilot rating

while acting as pilot in command or serving as a required flight crewmember of a light

- sport aircraft

other than a glider or balloon. ” 11 Our proposal to have the certificated flight instructor to possess a

driver ’ s lic ense or third class medical will provide an equivalent lev el of safety as the regulations.

Therefore, since the proposed restrictions have already been determined by the FAA to provide an

equivalent level of safety for commercial operations and there is n o added benefit to requiring a third

class medical for flight instructing
, the Petitioner is seeking the same exact restrictions as other

9 See 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(b)( 4).
10 See id. at (b)(5).
11 Id. at (c)(1)(iii).Page 20 of 26

previously granted exemptions to allow the PIC of a commercial flight instructing operation to use at

a minimum either a third class medical or a driver ’ s license

.



### C. Exempted Regulations the Petitioner Wishes To Maintain Without Change

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(c): Medical Certificates The FAA has said previously, “ The FAA is also granting relief from § 61.23(c) to allow sport pilot

certificate holders to operate aircraft other than LSA with a U.S. issued driver ’ s license under this

exemption. However, in absence of a defined regulatory structure specific to UAS, the FAA has

determined the minimum requirement for a UAS PIC under this exemption is to possess at least a U.S.

driver ’ s license. ” 13 Therefore, since the proposed restrictions have already been determined by the

FAA to provide an equivalent level of safety, the Petitioner is seeking the same exact restrictions as

other previously granted exemptions to allow the PIC to operate with eith er a third class medical or a

U.S. driver ’ s license.

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations , 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations ; 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a): Sport Pilot Limitations.

In Exemption # 11221, # 11284, and many others the FAA has declared that requiring the PIC to “ hold

either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate ” 14 provides an

equivalent level of safety as the regulations. Likewis e, the petitioner is asking for the same restriction.

13 Aeryon Labs, Inc.
, Exemption No. 11213 at 7.
14 Habana Avenue, LLC dba Fly Habana
, Exemption No. 11284 at 4.Page 21 of 26

3. 14 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness.

Section 333 allows the FAA to determine if our UA will need an airworthiness certificat e to be

compliant. The restrictions and procedures contained in the confidentially submitted manuals will be

sufficient for determining the airworthiness of the aircraft. The restrictions proposed will require the

PIC to conduct a pre

- flight check to determine airworthiness and the operator to be “ responsible for

main taining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation .” 15 The

referenced manuals along with the restrictions obligating the PIC and operator to check and ensure the

UA will provide “ sufficient means for determining an airwort hy condition in accordance with §

91.7(a). ” 16 Therefore, the Petitioner seeks relief to operate under the proposed restrictions and the

manuals because they will provide an equivalent level of safety as the regulations.

4. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119 (c) : Minimum Safe A ltitudes

. Section 91.119, sub

- s ection (c) requires the petitioner to operate at “ [a] n altitude of 500 feet above

the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not

be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. ” 17 This regulation is

impractical because it would require the Petitioner to opera te at 500ft above the ground f or many
operations . This i s a burdensome problem because many of the objects that need photographing will

all be at least 500ft away and the photos or video obtained w ould be almost completely useless.

15 Proposed Restriction 9.
16 Clayco Exemption No. 11109 at 13.
17 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c).Page 22 of 26

The Petitioner proposes to operate within the restrictions given in the Clayco Exemption which

the FAA has previously dete rmined will provid e an equivalent level of safety

. “ [A] ll persons not

essential to flight operations (nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open

areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel

(i.e. the PIC and VO). . . . If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect

nonparticipating persons from debris in the event of an accident then the UA may operate closer than

500 feet to pe rsons afforded su ch protection. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons

remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such

pro tection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately.

. . . [O] perations may be conducted c loser than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the land

owner/controller gra nts such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of

operating closer to those objects. ” 18 Our proposed restrictio ns will classify the flight instructor and

the student as essential perso ns under r estriction 2 6

. The student can be PIC, sport certificate or higher,

and receive instruction from a certificated flight instructor or the flight instructor can be PIC and be

giving instruction to a non

- certificate d student. Whoever is PIC must be complying with restriction

13. The restrictions will provide an equivalent level of safety as the regulations

.

18 Clayco Exemption No. 11109
, at page 15.Page 23 of 26

5. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings

. This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by refere nce to

an altimeter that is set “ ... to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting

available before depar ture. ” 19 Many UA do not have an altimeter but use GPS to determine height.

Furthermore, the cost of installing an altimeter will be financially burdensome.

An equivalent level of safety can be achieved by the operator, pursuant to following the manual s and

restrictions and using a GPS instead of an altimeter. Furthermore, the Clayco petition and many other

petitions have been granted allowing GPS to be used in lieu of an altimeter.

6. 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

. Section 91.151 (a) prohibits an individual from beginning “ a flight in an airplane under VFR

conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first

point of intended landing, and, assuming normal crui sing speed

- (1) During the day, to fly after that for

at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. ” 20 Most unmanned aircraft

cannot fly longer than 30 minutes ; therefore, most would always be violating this regulation i f they took

off. The Petitioner believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by restricting operations to

“ the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power

recommended by the manufacturer if greater. ” 21

19 14 C.F.R. § 91.121.
20 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a).
21 Habana Avenue, LLC dba Fly H abana, Exemption No. 11284, at page 5.Page 24 of 26

7. 14 C. F.R. § 91.405 (a); § 91.407 (a) (1); § 91.409 (a) (1)& (2); § 91.417(a) & (b): Maintenance

Inspections

These regulations require that an aircraft operator or owner “ shall have that aircraft inspected as

prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter ” 22 and

maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43. These regulations do not apply b ecause the FAA has

authority under Section 333 to determine the drones listed do no t need an airworthiness certificate. Since

there is no airworthiness certificate to maintain, Part 43 does not apply.

An equivalent level of safety to Part 43 will be achieved because small UA ’ s are very limited in size

and will carry a small payload and operate only in restricted areas for limited periods of time. Moreover,

the Petitioner is the best suited to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition to provide the equivalent

level of safety as Part 43. Lastly, the petitioner will operate in accordance with the manual s which will

provide an equivalent level of safety as the burdensome regulations.



## V II

. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As required by 14 C.F.R. Pa rt 11, below is provided a summary of the petition to be published in the

Federal Register should it be determined that publishing is needed.

22 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a).Page 25 of 26

The Petitioner is seek ing an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. 61.1; 6 1.3(d); 61.23(a) & (c); 61.31(c) & (d); 61.51(h) & (j); 61.101(e)(4) & (5); 61.113(a); 61.195; 61 61.315(a); 91.7(a); 91.105; 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a)(1); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); and 91.417(a) & (b) to operate an unmanned aircraft, weighing 55 pounds or less, commercially for flight instruction, aerial data collection operations
, and closed

set tv/movie filming using the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 3, DJI S900, DJI S1000, and DJI Inspire.
This petition for exemption is needed because (1) flight instructors are currently not approved to fly commercially under 333 exemptions or public COA ’ and doing so in compliance with the regulations is highly impractical , (2) the public needs qualified professionals to learn how to safely operate recreational and commercial unmanned aircraft (“ UA ”) , (3) it will encourage a culture a safety to prevent harm, (4) the public can use the flight instructor endorsements in safety evaluations, a nd (5) it enables insurance carriers to increase the operational safety of their clients and lower premiums. The ability to train students to go out and safely operate UA in lieu of hiring a manned aircraft to fulfil their recreational or commercial goals will provide a far safer alternative than using a jet or piston power ed aircraft because small batteries will be used instead of large amounts of highly flammable fuel, the UA can be transported to the operation location via ground vehicle as opposed to ferrying in the air, the UA will be operate d at altitudes far below manned aircraf t, and the UA will use clean electricity for power as opposed to 100LL which has the by

- product of small amounts of lead being released into the atmosphere for the public to breath e

. The proposed restrictions contained in the petition and manuals will prov ide an equivalent level of safety as the regulations. 

## VIII

. OPERATING DOCUMENTS
Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor will operate only within the limitations above and the limitations

listed in the confidentially submitted manual s

. Th e limitations above will be followed if there is a conflict

with the manual s

.



## I X

. STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO GRANT THIS PETITION

The Federal Aviation Act gives the FAA the authority to grant exemptions. “ The Administrator may

grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of thisPage 26 of 26

section or any sections 44702

- 44716 of this title if the Administrator finds the exemption in the public

interest. ” 23 Furthermore, Section 333 of the FAA Moder nization and Reform Act of 2012 gives the

Secretary of Transportation the ability to consider whether the unmanned aircraft can operate in the

national airspace until final regulations are published. Lastly, Congress directed the Secretary for the

Department of Transportation to “ establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the

national a irspace system. ” 24 The FAA has already established requirements for summary grants which we

a re adopting and incorporating into our proposed operating restrictions.



## X

. CONCLUSION

The operation of Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor using a small UA , weighing less than 55 lbs.,

conducted under the proposed restrictions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety as
the burdensome regulations; therefore, this petition should be granted without delay. If I can be of any

assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222

- 6 979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________ Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.

23 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f); accord 49 U.S.C. § 44711(b).
24 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112

- 95, § 333(c), 126 Stat. 11 (2012).